4.3 Review

On the way to high-conductivity single lithium-ion conductors

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOLID STATE ELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 1879-1905

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10008-017-3638-8

关键词

Solid electrolyte; Single-ion conductor; Transference number; Li ion battery; Polymers; Ceramics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid electrolytes can potentially address three key limitations of the organic electrolytes used in today's lithium-ion batteries, namely, their flammability, limited electrochemical stability and low cationic transference number. The pioneering works of Wright and Armand, suggesting the use of solid poly(ethylene oxide)-based polymer electrolytes (PE) for lithium batteries, paved the way to the development of solid-state batteries based on PEs. Yet, low cationic mobility-low Li+ transference number in polymer materials coupled with sufficiently high room-temperature conductivity remains inaccessible. The current strategies employed for the production of single-ion polymer conductors include designing new lithium salts, bonding of anions with the main polyether chain or incorporating them into the side chains of comb-branched polymers, plasticizing, adding inorganic fillers and anion receptors. Glass and crystalline superionic solids are classical single-ion-conducting electrolytes. However, because of grain boundaries and poor electrode/electrolyte interfacial contacts, achieving electrochemical performance in solid-state batteries comprising polycrystalline inorganic electrolytes, comparable to the existing batteries with liquid electrolytes, is particularly challenging. Quasi-elastic polymer-in-ceramic electrolytes provide good alternatives to the traditional lithium-ion-battery electrolytes and are believed to be the subject of extensive current research. This review provides an account of the advances over the past decade in the development of single-ion-conducting electrolytes and offers some directions and references that may be useful for further investigations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据